this post was submitted on
1,340 points (72% like it)
2,189 up votes 849 down votes

skeptic

unsubscribe54,921 readers

~26 users here now

Before you submit, remember to ask yourself this question:

"If this type of content begins to dominate the subreddit, how would I feel?"

If the answer is "Not particularly good" -- or similar -- wrap it in a self-post, or if the answer is "Particularly bad", don't post it!


Foundation Beyond Belief, with JREF and the excellent Steifel Freethought Organization, is running a fundraiser for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society!

Help raise $1,000,000 for cancer research, click here for details.


Need something debunked by those in the know? Looking to exercise some critical thinking or research skills? Want to eviscerate pseudoscience, idiocy, and irrationality wherever it lurks? Skeptic's Subreddit, where all the cool kids go.

Not sure you're the same type of skeptic as others here? This might help.


Subreddits of Interest

If you're into investigation and research of myths and claims, also consider visiting r/debunkthis.

If you're in the UK, and you're a skeptic, logic dictates /r/ukskeptic may be of interest to you.

If you've watched the news, you know how badly evidence-based fact-checking is needed in politics, this is where you can go to find people doing just that.


If you'd like your subreddit here, send a mail to the mods w/ a description like the above -- the easier you make it for me to cut-and-paste, the better!

(If We've missed someone who's already sent one in a reasonable amount of time ago, send it again and We'll add it)


Don't forget to check the "new" tab, or you might miss something!


Blogspam, n. : Any post consisting of old content, which adds little to no value to the content, and merely serves to drive traffic to a site for ad or direct revenue

If you see blogspam, report it, downvoting doesn't always work, because blogspammers use bots. A mod will review it and take appropriate action.

Do not use URL shorteners in story submissions or comments. They look spammy (like you're hiding something) and will get marked as such by the filter.


Policy on memes and the like: Read this to understand how we deal with meme-posts here. Don't post without reading it, it's important.


If your site looks spammy/malicious. We will remove it. If you continue to re-submit the same link to the same spammy looking site. We will ban you.

We don't like to ban, but if you are providing potentially harmful/spammy/zero-content stuff. We will take measures to prevent you.

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 51 comments

[–]a-ninja-near 135 points136 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hey! That's me holding my sign!

[–]opi[S] 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really? All upvotes to you, then, good sir. This image circled around my, ekhm, Science Circle on G+ and I loved the idea so much. Kudos³!

[–]a-ninja-near 29 points30 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Really. I posted proof when it made the rounds a couple weeks ago.

[–]opi[S] 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm sorry, I wish I could find out before and make a proper attribution.

PS. I'm going to steal that sign, ha ha ha!

[–]Redcard911 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My research methods prof has this as the centerpiece of his office door. Well done.

[–]starkeffect 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This was at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, yes?

[–]a-ninja-near 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yep.

[–]executex 20 points21 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If every politician in the world had a scientific or skeptical perspective combined with evidentialist principles, we really would rarely have any difficult problems.

[–]steveboutin 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

we'd still have tons of problems, but we wouldn't stay the course based on belief, so they'd be easier to solve and wouldn't last as long as the self-perpetuated problems we deal with now...

  • the war on drugs
  • the war on terror
  • gay rights, abortion, stem cell research
  • the corporate destruction of the economy
  • the corporate destruction of the ecosystem

[–]Aitioma 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The war on media piracy.

[–]sharlos -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Those problems aren't primarily caused by politicians, it's caused by voters who elect them. For example, many politicians do believe in climate change, but that's not a vote winner, so suddenly their opinions change.

[–]burntsushi 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah because doubt makes every problem easy.

Come on, don't be so naive.

[–]Eslader 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That would require the electorate to hold similar views, otherwise you'd end up with the skeptical politicians losing the elections to write-in campaigns from Joe Public.

It also assumes politicians have as a goal the common good, and are just too dumb and/or misguided to do it right. In reality, many politicians are quite good at predicting the results of their actions, and the results of their actions are exactly what they want, despite what they tell the public.

I would argue that the rise of the GOP in the post-Carter years has been very well planned - convincing their constituents that Republicans are on Jesus' side, and that Jesus was a neoconservative was politically brilliant and has served them exceedingly well.

[–]Aitioma 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We just established that we are working on evidence-based arguments and peer-review.

What you just said has to do with neither.

[–]Eslader 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So we're in Imaginary Land then? Because if you think the average person is going to suddenly be swayed by evidence-based arguments and peer-review rather than the partisan bullshit that we have now, you're dreaming.

[–]Aitioma 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who cares about the average person?

The average person isn't effectively involved in the political process anyway.

[–]Eslader 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You should probably address that to executex, who bemoaned the fact that we don't have politicians who think scientifically/skeptically. I was responding to that post, which you might want to read again. In the light of that post, mine was entirely appropriate and reasonable, while your last was not. If you want these mythical skeptic-evidentialist politicians, you have to get them elected, and that means you have to make them appeal to the average person.

[–]Aitioma -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you want these mythical skeptic-evidentialist politicians, you have to get them elected, and that means you have to make them appeal to the average person.

I think the average person doesn't qualify as educated enough to vote.

I don't think people should be allowed to vote if they aren't mature and politically aware enough. Rather than age restrictions there should be political tests required for any voter to take to show that they understand what they are voting on. Instead we restrict access to votes to people younger than a certain age although a lot of 12 years olds know more about reality and politics than many people who actually are allowed to vote.

The system we work with is inherently flawed. It's irrelevant whether you have to appeal to people... if you have to appeal to people to act logically, then we have way bigger problems to solve and it won't be possible under the current system.

[–]Eslader 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Rather than age restrictions there should be political tests required for any voter to take to show that they understand what they are voting on.

Nice thought, but in practice it would be a disaster. Don't want the majority to vote so that you can consolidate power? Make damn sure the majority can't get educated, and then make them take a test you know they can't pass. This has already happened once in our nation's history, when after blacks were given the right to vote, but were uneducated, some places required tests that they knew uneducated black people could not pass, thus making sure that black people's voices were still not heard.

Today the testing wouldn't be racially biased, but it would be socioeconomically biased - those who are wealthy enough to get a good education can vote, and those who aren't, can't, which means that eventually the majority of the country would not be represented in government.

Plus, who gets to set the test, and how do we determine an appropriate question? What question would you suggest for, say, voting in the Republican primaries that are going on right now? Who are the candidates? That doesn't prove you know anything about the issues. You can't ask about the issues, because that's subjective and therefore automatically excludes people who don't agree with you, at which point, why bother with a vote?

[–]Aitioma 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice thought, but in practice it would be a disaster.

Works well in every other field. Our whole educational and job apparatus is based on it.

Don't want the majority to vote so that you can consolidate power?

It's not about power, it's about logic.

And I want the majority to be able to vote, that's the point.

This has already happened once in our nation's history, when after blacks were given the right to vote, but were uneducated, some places required tests that they knew uneducated black people could not pass, thus making sure that black people's voices were still not heard.

You are talking about deliberately withholding information.

Opening a free website that makes all necessary information and handing it out for free in public libraries makes that concern completely irrelevant.

Today the testing wouldn't be racially biased, but it would be socioeconomically biased

Nonsense.

But to make that case for the exact opposite position: Today our whole voting system is biased. It's biased based on how much money you have and thereby how easily you can influence the uneducated masses.

those who are wealthy enough to get a good education can vote, and those who aren't, can't, which means that eventually the majority of the country would not be represented in government.

What are you talking about? What would prevent anyone from being politically educated?

which means that eventually the majority of the country would not be represented in government.

You mean... like today?

That's exactly the point: Only a person who knows what he/she is voting for can actually vote for themselves and in good conscience.

Most people aren't represented by their government. People vote for the lesser evil and most people don't even know what the hell they are voting for.

Plus, who gets to set the test, and how do we determine an appropriate question?

Who gets to set the tests in school and university?

What question would you suggest for, say, voting in the Republican primaries that are going on right now?

What?

I'm talking about general political education in a neutral manner.

What are parties. How does the voting system work. Major influences on politics. How can you get information about parties. How can you bring about change in a democratic system. What is the constitution. What is written in the constitution. What is propaganda. What are lobbyists. How can people be indoctrinated and how can you prepare yourself against it. What are political stances to take. What's the history of politics. Explaining concepts such as left and right, capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, corporatism, liberalism, everything else you cast your vote for, etc. Basic economics. What is money. How does the federal reserve work. What are taxes. How are politics financed. Who can be a politician. How do politicians come into office.

Who are the candidates? That doesn't prove you know anything about the issues.

Why would that need to be asked? It's not about knowing something about any of the parties. It's about knowing something about politics and how this stuff works and how to educate yourself and stop yourself from being influenced by promises. It's about understanding politics so that then you can listen to what the parties have to say and make a conscious and informed decision.

You can't ask about the issues, because that's subjective and therefore automatically excludes people who don't agree with you, at which point, why bother with a vote?

What are you talking about? What's subjective about political education?

[–]Eslader 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You are acting as though people who seek power are altruistic, logical, and fair. They're not. If we put a system in place in which you have to pass a test in order to vote, then those who are in power are going to rig the test so that only the people THEY want to be voting can pass it.

Just in your example questions, you want them to explain fascism. Great. Well let's see, the Republicans have power now, and they like to claim that Obama is a fascist. You think it's a good idea to require people to take a test in which they have to say that the Democrats are fascists in order to pass? In your hypothetical electoral system, who gets to write the test? Who makes sure the person writing the test is writing it in an unbiased way? Who makes sure the person watching the test writer isn't in cahoots with the test writer?

[–]JamesCarlin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Who cares about the average person?"

Now I personally believe government and democracy is a bunch of bullshit. However isn't "caring about the average person" supposed to be the premise of democracies and western governments?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not so naive as to accept the public premise of what government claims to be. Since you do not care about the average person, perhaps you can then answer honestly: what is the actual motivation behind what you advocate?

[–]Aitioma 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

However isn't "caring about the average person" supposed to be the premise of democracies and western governments?

Democracy is about the population deciding how the state has to be governed.

Currently the population decides nothing, because it isn't informed enough. The politicians with the most money and biggest promises win because they can influence the most people into voting for them.

The general population isn't involved in the government at all, because they have no idea what's going on.

what is the actual motivation behind what you advocate?

Creating a politically informed public to effectively decide on its government so that the democratic system actually works in a democratic way.

Currently it's not democratic at all. It's more like the parents of mentally disabled children comitting crimes and then using their children as scapegoats. "What? No, I didn't steal that car and sell it, my stupid and additionally severely schizophrenic son did!"

Politicians influence huge parts of a politically ignorant public to vote for them, make horrible decisions and then blame their mistakes on the population, because they can't be responsible as they "only did what the population voted for, right?".

I don't care about the general population because the general population is too stupid to take political responsibility. Either abandon democracy and install a technocracy based on humanist premises or enforce general political education so those that vote can be expected to have an informed opinion on the matters they are voting.

[–]JamesCarlin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Either abandon democracy and install a technocracy based on humanist premises or enforce general political education so those that vote can be expected to have an informed opinion on the matters they are voting.

What about....

....no person has the legitimate authority to interfere in another person's life without their consent?

[–]Aitioma 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's called anarchism and it doesn't work very well when ressources need to be managed efficiently on a global scale without resulting in total chaos and egocentrism.

[–]JamesCarlin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't know. USSR seemed to be the expert on efficient centrally planned global scale resource management until they collapsed.

[–]aintso 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So far the evidence favors the hypothesis that those willing to publicly espouse skeptical perspective don't succeed in politics.

[–]dimmy 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Depending on how you define "believe".

[–]steveboutin 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...after an extensive cost/benefit analysis, of course.

[–]dumnezero 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So... technocrats?

[–]NerdBot9000 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes please.

[–]Natedogg213 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

According to Republicans, Obama has fundamentally changed the America that we "used to know".

[–]BasicEcon101 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think they just blame Obama for everything shitty that happened in the last 10 years because their guy was in charge and they can't criticize one of their own.

[–]Battlesheep 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

nobody wants to take responsibility

[–]V2Blast 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, they've criticized Bush too (though, well, far less). Obama's a Democrat, so they don't have to feel as bad about it.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sure, but they waited for the guy to be out of office for the bulk of that criticism.

[–]V2Blast 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

True.

[–]MrKequc 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's all different now.

[–]NuclearWookie 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This isn't their argument of course, but thanks to Obama the executive branch can now murder citizens and their families without trial. That is a pretty stark difference from the America before his reign.

[–]jfredett 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Every now and again I look at this subreddit and think, "All these meme posts, all these facebook posts... all this content-free stuff. I should make /r/skeptic self-only."

Then I see shit like this, and I remember that being self-only might leave out these little things, and then I'm torn.

Is there are decent-posts-only option?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, you could click the up-arrow on decent posts and the down-arrow on the shitty ones. That requires everyone else to do likewise, as well, though.

[–]jfredett 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The issue is this -- lots of people like posts that don't 'belong' in skeptic. Compare /r/haskell, where I curate content much more heavily. People do occasionally post content-free stuff. Memes, Image Macros, etc. On skeptic, I avoid such curation for fear of censorship. At the same time. Funny image macros are not the point of this subreddit, rather, skeptical discussion, scientific review, and -- well -- content. Real content, not cheap jokes about the victims of pseudoscience. Rather, real content dealing with why the pseudoscience is pseudoscience, how to debunk it, and where you might find it lurking. It's a place for advice on how to deal with woo-victims and peddlers. It's not a place to ridicule, it's a place to educate.

The benefit of a self-post-only model (as we've seen on similar subreddits that have gone self-only for temporary or permanent periods), the quality of individual posts skyrockets. I'd really like the quality of posts to stay high, I really don't want /r/skeptic to become /r/atheism -- there is virtually no real content in atheism, it's senseless religion bashing. My thought was that self-post-only would help to prevent that.

I'm not there yet, and -- as I think I've made clear in the past -- I'd not take unilateral action without gauging the community as a whole. But it's on my mind, and it's something I'd certainly appreciate opinions on. More generally, if you have ideas on how best to ensure we don't become a content-free zone, I'd love to hear them too.

By the way, to end on a high note -- take a look at the subscriber number over there, just under 40,000 -- that's fucking huge eh? I remember around this time last year, we were just brushing past ~5,000, I think. 8x growth in a year, that's pretty crazy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually, self posts don't prevent these cool pictures from showing up. They just prevent people from getting karma off of them and encourage the providing of context. Maybe the self-post thing isn't such a bad idea.

[–]jfredett 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's a tempting thing, is it not? It just seems like a very big change, which is perhaps without warrant at the moment.

[–]burntsushi 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you make it self-only people will just put the link in the self post :P

Oh, and hi Joe :-) How's life?

[–]jfredett 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

At least they wouldn't get karma for it, which is the motivation, I imagine, of the general memification in reddit. You put a score on anything, and suddenly everyone has to drive it up.

Hi Andrew! Life is good. Work is interesting. Generally everything is pretty chill. How are you?

[–]ukchris 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thought I hadn't seen that image this week yet.

[–]respeckKnuckles 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

After peer review and repeated results by a sufficient number of third parties, of course.